Re the original analysis, my own opinion is that the outcome is only surprising when the critical detail, highlighting how the two are different, is omitted. It seems very unsurprising if it is rephrased to include that detail: "DuckDB, executed multi-threaded + parallelized, is 2.5x faster than wc, single-threaded, even though in doing so, DuckDB used 9.3x more CPU".
In fact, to me, the only thing that seems surprising about that is how poorly DuckDB does compared to WC-- 9x more CPU for only 2.5x more improvement.
But an interesting analysis regardless of the takeaways-- thank you
Re the original analysis, my own opinion is that the outcome is only surprising when the critical detail, highlighting how the two are different, is omitted. It seems very unsurprising if it is rephrased to include that detail: "DuckDB, executed multi-threaded + parallelized, is 2.5x faster than wc, single-threaded, even though in doing so, DuckDB used 9.3x more CPU".
In fact, to me, the only thing that seems surprising about that is how poorly DuckDB does compared to WC-- 9x more CPU for only 2.5x more improvement.
But an interesting analysis regardless of the takeaways-- thank you